The Monarchy Good or bad

Not sure I would count myself as a Royalist - if we did not have them I would not advocate introducing them - but as we do and they do little harm and cause reasonable amusement (Prince Philip) I would let them be.

 

Glad they are changing the succession rules

 

Changing the succession rules is ludicrous. If we want to keep this pantomime family as our heads of state we should leave its structure in tact and observe the tradition fully. This meddling with history and religion for convenience gets my goat, its the same with gay bishops and the like, despite what Christ stands for they think its acceptable, either axccept the doctrine / historical line or reject it and move on but dont pick bits.....

 

There was an interesting quote in the press this week from the racing last week. Zara philips was sat in a corner with a drink disturbing no one, katie price aka jordan walked in shouting demands left right and centre!


Whilst changing the succesion rule is on the face a good thing praticaly it requires law changes in 17 other countries AND is likely to be irrelevant for fifty years as we have several male heirs
- basicaly if it would make adiffetence tommorrow we should change it but its just silly togo to all the effort for zero practical purpose

 

There have been studies to prove that this Royals = tourists argument is nonsense. Tourists don't come here because we have a queen. They come for the arts, the history etc. It's not as if Liz is personally greeting them each off their planes with a garland of flowers, now is it?

Given my recent BBC moans here's a chance for them to redeem themselves. Saturday night programme. Princes Philip, Charles, Andrew, Edward, Harry, William all have to do wartime dancing a la Lambeth Walk, holding onto their braces, big time cockney dancing, and then viewers vote by phone/text for their favourite.
The least popular, before they leave the programme, gets an almighty kick in the testicles by Jonny Wilkinson (doing his hand-holding, run up, everything).

Project provisionally named: 'A Right Royal Knees-Up' ?

Now tell me that wouldn't win any TV ratings battle.

 

SLB maybe you should be in charge of the bbc!!!
Roo everyone knows it just an effort to win votes nothing more!

 

I only came across this today, but some of you may have already seen it.

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Kav0FEhtLug

 

If something is wrong it should be changed and nowadays it is wrong to have women not stand in proper line for the throne - if it takes 17 countries to change the law so what - although I cannot actually believe that statistic as it is in the UK we are discussing - not ALL royal families

Don't get me started on some of the hypocracy in religion - I think "Thou Shalt not Kill" is about as basic and simple as it comes - so any Christian who advocates killing has in my book failed to read their Good Book. Gays, women vicars eyc pale into insignificance with this basic law.

 

How about the eye for an eye angle then Leo!!!

 

Or if killing 1 saved 10! or killing 1 saved 1000`s? What then?

 

You'll never change my mind on the issue, kings rule queens hold court. The monarchy is a tradition not really a necessary part of government and as such if you start meddling with it just go the whole hog and scrap it. Changing the succession is like repairing a classic car with fibreglass... either scrap the rusty old thing or repair it with steel keeping the original spec.

 

As someone has already pointed out Elizabeth I, Elizabeth II and Victoria have matched or bettered any of our Kings. - the succession rules date from a time when women could not hold property etc - our constitution is not written and it evolves - so it should. It is an insult to women as much as denying them the vote a century ago was.

 

Lots of things about the monarchy change - why if you "meddle" with it do you have to go the whole hog and scrap it - 30 or 40 years ago the monarchy did not pay income tax - do you think we should return to that tradition?

 

I think the Monarchy is outdated and as soon as there usefulness is over ,they should be consigned to
the history books! that said there are certain business deals they do help clinch!

 

Doubt their "usefulness" if they have any will ever be over - not likely to change - they do bring in tourist- not as someone suggested people who think they will see the Queen - but people who visit all the trappings of royalty.

Good luck to them they dont bother me so I wont bother them

 

Did a great job of bringing the world cup to Britain.......................not. I find it an insult to women and men that liberals think they are and should be treated equal. Women and men are not equal but have distinct roles, neither is superior to the other but this homogenising of the sexes really pees me off. I like my women feminine and not some pseudo male. I will admit in my marriage the wife actually holds more cards and dictates more than I do, its called using her feminine powers. Elizabeth 1 and 2 and Victoria were all post magna carta so pretty useless as far as driving the country goes. We dismantled the empire under the current incumbent and have lost the Great in Great Britain though I don't blame the monarch as I say I dont believe they have that much influence. We are after all a parliamentary democracy.

 

Aberdeen we made the best presentation for the world cup, but it was already a done deal done by blatter and his corrupt cronies at FIFA. Australia was robbed there as well as us WC finals in Qatar come on ,they bribed blatter pure and simple!!
Not the Queenies fault!
Loss of empire ,was by successive governments not queenie!!

 

So ozzies and us lost out, who's the head of state of both?
You'll see in my post I point out that the monarchy is irrelevant to these type of issues since magna carta. The royals were however involved in the world cup bid and do get involved in a fair bit of British Aerospace business with possibly more success in the Aerospace side of things!!!

 

I am fed up with politicians mucking around with things without actually improving them. When you see the way that so many regarded their election as a way of making a reasonable living, rather than doing the best for the country and the people they represent, what real faith can you have in the parliamentary process.

Changing the heredity set-up in the Lords has made no difference. Would it be any different if there were another group of elected representatives? In my opinion it would simply create another layer of professional politicians elected by a tiny number of electors.

Just leave constitutional things alone, the existing systems work as well as any others.

 

Fair shout Frenchie , we could go the whole hog and scrap parliament and let the Queen run the country!!!(after all the majority of us hate the politicians!!!)